Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TR] Intel removes modest 'free' overclocking from standard Haswell CPUs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TR] Intel removes modest 'free' overclocking from standard Haswell CPUs - Page 7

post #61 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

which is why my next cpu will be a FX 6300... on a 4.8-5.0ghz overclock it will match any of the SB/IB intels core for core at their stock speeds.

There are poorly threaded games where this is NOT the case at all.
post #62 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

There are poorly threaded games where this is NOT the case at all.
There will be as long as you enjoy playing games like Battlefield 2, or MW2. Tho AMD's pushing game development to being heavily threaded. THIEF and Battlefield 4 will both be thread heavy, thus optimized for AMD's FX processors. If AMD can keep pushing the game development platform in this direction, while delivering Steamroller grade updates to their desktop processor lineup. In a few years AMD chips will be all the rage when it comes to the gaming world (once again, god bless you Athlon 64 tongue.gif). With that era beginning now as previously stated, games are already adopting the fact that there is more hardware available to utilize. Meanwhile older games suffer none from the slower core performance, what I mean by that is games like Battlefield 2 were written to utilize only a single core. That was such a long time ago, core performance of a single Bulldozer core exceeds what a Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 offered at the time. There's really only a select few games that are impacted to the point where you really notice the difference between the competitor. It's hard to find a game that isn't playable maxed out above 60 FPS with a stock FX-6350. I wish people would put the whole "you gotta buy Intel if you want good frame rate" stereotyping to bed, as it's far from valid. Intel will offer better frame rates, sometimes significantly more in lightly threaded CPU heavy games. Tho there's nothing to say you can't maintain playable frame rates with a AMD based processor. What it all really boils down to is that green stuff, I bought a toilet plunger at the dollar store years ago, still works every time. biggrin.gif
The Beast
(13 items)
 
Sero 7 Pro
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10-6800k ASRock FM2A85X Extreme6 ASUS HD 5870 8GB AMD Radeon™ RP1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
60GB SSDNow V300 LG 24X FX Liquid Loop Windows 8 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2009m Logitech K120 Fractal Tesla R2 650W Fractal Arc Midi R2 
Mouse
HP Modguo 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Nvidia Tegra3 ULP GeForce 1 GB 8 GB 
OSMonitorPowerAudio
Android 4.2 (Jelly Bean) 7" IPS @ 1280×800 4000 mAh Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
The Beast
(13 items)
 
Sero 7 Pro
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10-6800k ASRock FM2A85X Extreme6 ASUS HD 5870 8GB AMD Radeon™ RP1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
60GB SSDNow V300 LG 24X FX Liquid Loop Windows 8 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2009m Logitech K120 Fractal Tesla R2 650W Fractal Arc Midi R2 
Mouse
HP Modguo 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Nvidia Tegra3 ULP GeForce 1 GB 8 GB 
OSMonitorPowerAudio
Android 4.2 (Jelly Bean) 7" IPS @ 1280×800 4000 mAh Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFPS View Post

I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

This.

You guys only agree because you are wrong.

Least expensive K part? ~$210

Least expensive CPU Intel makes for contemporary sockets? ~$40

If you want to OC with hardware you can easily obtain new, you have to pay a 170 dollar premium.

Even if we limit the argument to CPUs that are effectively identical in all ways, except for being unlocked, and further limit ourselves to Haswell/LGA1150, we are still looking at a 60 dollar gap between the i5-4430 and the i5-4570K. That's three times as much as 20, and a 33% premium over the cost of the 4430.

And of course, this limitation ignores the fact that many tasks still don't need a quad core as much as they would benefit from a fast dual core (possibly w/HT). If a low end i3 or Pentium could OC, it could be made to match an i5 K in many of these tasks for half the price, or less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacrossewacker View Post

but were you all thinking non-K CPU's could still be manipulated through unlocked strapping? Is that what you're referring to?

Non K Sandy and Ivy parts had four multipliers above their turbo states that could be used for OCing.

These no longer exist and that's what this article is about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacrossewacker View Post

So you could pretty much overclock any CPU before? At least a good majority of their desktop CPU's?

Before Sandy, there was no way to prevent significant OCing on a motherboard with adjustable reference clocks and a PCI/AGP/PCI-E lock.

In 1995, I bought a Pentium 75MHz and without touching the multiplier, ran it at 100MHz simply by moving the FSB jumper from 50MHz to 66MHz. The Pentium 75 cost less than half the Pentium 100 at the time.

In 1997, I bought a Pentium MMX 200, and ran it at 266MHz by upping the multiplier by one. There was no desktop 266MHz Pentium.

In 2000, I bought an Athlon 700MHz, and with a bit of hardware tweaking was able to run it at an 8.5 multipler with a 112MHz FSB, or 950MHz, on a board that didn't even have a PCI/AGP lock. Again, I saved myself hundreds of dollars here.

From 2001 to 2004 I had about a dozen Socket A Athlons and Athlon XPs, and I was always able to buy some of the cheapest parts in a series, and was always able to make them run faster than the highest end officially released part.

In early 2004 I picked up my first Athlon 64. Because multiplers were locked, and most platforms available at release did not have PCI/AGP locks. So for the first time in about 10 years, I couldn't OC more than ~10% or so. Release of the NForce3 chipset, and later a revised VIA K8T chipset, with these locks let me get some pretty damn impressive OCs out of dirt cheap parts once again.

From 2004 to 2006 I OCed a pile of A64s and a few opterons, again all lower end models. I had an NF4 DAGF that cost me 70 dollars, and was able to get 50% OC out of my 3000+ Venice, a 65 dollar part. I had a system that could go toe to to with some of the fastest single core stock parts at the time (all 500 dollars +), that cost me under 150 dollars for CPU+mobo+RAM.

In early 2007 I switched back to Intel, because Core 2 had been released. I sure as hell wasn't going to spend hundreds of dollars on high-end parts, so I bought a Pentium E 2140 for $70, and DFI Blood Iron for about the same price. It wasn't even difficult to get a 100% OC on this chip, with the stock cooler. So yeah a 150 dollar board + CPU combo was match a stock QX6850s that cost 1k for the CPU alone. I later took a few E8400s to 4GHz+, and my best W3350 (Xeon equivalent of a Q9450) also managed 4GHz, though on a much better board than the Blood Iron (which could not handle anywhere near 500MHz FSB with a Yorkfield quad).

In very early 2009 I grabbed an LGA-1366 setup, and immediately took an i7 920 C0 to 3.8GHz (from 2.66). It was not a budget platform, but I was still able to buy the lowest end parts made for the socket, and generally match what the highest end parts could do. I ran an i7 920 D0 at 4.2GHz (nearly a 60% OC) 24/7, for years, on a budget board, with a 50 dollar air cooler, and the least expensive memory I could find.

Since that time, I've been limited to buying K parts to OC, and OCing has thus gotten a lot more expensive, for relatively less performance gain. It's not a huge problem for me personally, as my uses are more varied and demanding that what they once were, and I've had to buy hex cores that can all OC anyway (a 2700k from Intel's retail edge is probably the last desktop quad core I'll ever put in one of my systems), but there are times that I want build a super budget box for myself, or someone else, and have to reconsider because there are no longer any budget CPUs that will suffice for the same kinds of uses I once bought them for. Seriously, I used to be able to make fairly high-end gaming systems for 500-600 dollars by spending 50%+ of the budget on the GPU, and overclocking the snot out of everything else. Can't do that any more, not even with AMD.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
Vishera Testbed
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3GHz, 1.225v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F4m) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.35v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 CM Storm Spawn Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-19-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-1... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 2x Seagate 7200.10 RAID 0 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Prolimatech Genesis + 2x140mm Cougar 1200rpm Windows Server 2008 R2 Antec TP-750 Antec P182 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9590 @ 5GHz, 1.55v ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Reference NVIDIA GTX 780 2x8GiB G.Skill DDR3-1866 10-11-10-30-T1, 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M500 480GB 2x Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB XSPC RX360 + X20 750 + Raystorm Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Dell S2740L Seasonic SS-860XP2 Coolermaster HAF-932 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
Vishera Testbed
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3GHz, 1.225v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F4m) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.35v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 CM Storm Spawn Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-19-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-1... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 2x Seagate 7200.10 RAID 0 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Prolimatech Genesis + 2x140mm Cougar 1200rpm Windows Server 2008 R2 Antec TP-750 Antec P182 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9590 @ 5GHz, 1.55v ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Reference NVIDIA GTX 780 2x8GiB G.Skill DDR3-1866 10-11-10-30-T1, 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M500 480GB 2x Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB XSPC RX360 + X20 750 + Raystorm Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Dell S2740L Seasonic SS-860XP2 Coolermaster HAF-932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #64 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenge View Post

According to Intel's ARK, the i7-4770K does not have VT-d (aka "Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O"), while its standard-clocked counterpart (i7-4770) does have it.

The same difference in VT-d functionality applies between the i5-4670K and i5-4670.
Quote:
Originally Posted by candy_van View Post

Maybe I'll catch hell for this, but if you want to OC, the extra $20 for an unlocked chip isn't really a big deal.

it is a big deal, see how they contradict.

i want overclock AND VT-d
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TR] Intel removes modest 'free' overclocking from standard Haswell CPUs